User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; OpenBSD amd64; rv:2.0b11) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0b11 Build Identifier: Followup of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=522375, the attached patch implement the needed function for OpenBSD. Tested with Mike Hommey's startup.xpi extension, works fine for me. Reproducible: Always
Added myself to contributors, feel free to remove if the addition is not worth it.
Comment on attachment 511379 [details] [diff] [review] Implement CalculateProcessCreationTimestamp() on OpenBSD I'm pretty sure that instead of copying code like this one can just adapt the OSX code and have a unified approach for all of the BSDs
Attachment #511379 - Flags: review?(tglek) → review-
Well. I'm only responsible for OpenBSD, but i can tell you that : - osx has proc->kp_proc.p_un.__p_starttime.tv_sec (what a nice name!), openbsd & netbsd have proc->p_ustart_sec as int32_t, freebsd has proc->ki_start which is a struct timeval. - openbsd and netbsd have struct kinfo_proc2, freebsd has struct kinfo_proc - the mib names for the sysctl code are probably the same for netbsd and openbsd, i doubt it for freebsd so i don't think we'll get a more readable code with a 'unified approach for all of the bsd' with a function filled with #ifdefs.. maybe common things for openbsd/netbsd and macos/freebsd, but i'm not the one who can judge that. cc'ing netbsd and freebsd mozilla maintainers for comments.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Net and freebsd guys, any comments ? Taras how should we proceed to move forward ?
OpenBSD switched back from kinfo_proc2 to kinfo_proc recently, so adapt.. This patch reuses the XP_MACOSX codepath as requested by taras, i don't find it particularly readable compared to the previous version..
Is that patch ready for review ?
I'm testbuilding both now, but i'd rather use that one with a separate #if block. Obsoletes previous att 511379 since this one uses kinfo_proc instead of kinfo_proc2.
Comment on attachment 526670 [details] [diff] [review] Implement CalculateProcessCreationTimestamp() on OpenBSD hey, sorry for not responding earlier(I wasn't CCed on the bug). Thanks for verifying that a unified approach is worse.
Attachment #526670 - Flags: review? → review+
Pushed in cedar: http://hg.mozilla.org/projects/cedar/rev/c5fcc4d54945 Landry, to make pushers life easier, could you follow these rules when attaching a patch: http://blog.bonardo.net/2010/06/22/so-youre-about-to-use-checkin-needed Thanks :)
Assignee: nobody → landry
Hardware: Other → All
Whiteboard: [fixed in cedar]
Pushed in m-c: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c5fcc4d54945
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [fixed in cedar]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla6
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.